Faith in permanent death

[Willamena]

Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding this argument, but it seems, Willa, that you are making a similar mistake as many creationists who claim that there obviously must have been a Creator since there is Creation. By defining Polyhedral's statement that the universe has an orderly direction in which it is going as an algorithm, you are artificially importing the need for an algorithm creator.

No, that doesn't reflect any argument I've made. Poly's arguing that algorithm is appropriate to describe the universe. I'm arguing that algorithm is an intelligence breaking down the steps by which an outcome is derived; so it could be concluded (thought I hadn't explicitly argued this part yet because it's not important to me) that algorithm is inappropriate to describe a universe that doesn't include an intelligent designer. Algorithm is an elegant, intelligent design --regardless of how many cooks there are in the kitchen.

It's like the natural laws. Gravity doesn't exist because the Law of Gravitation was created by Isaac Newton. The Law of Gravitation exists because Newton observed a phenomenon present in nature. The existence of the law doesn't imply that there was someone there to set the law in motion; it only required the existence of an observer to see it in effect.

The Law of Gravity is probably not the best example for what you're trying to say here, because it's very much dependent upon observed phenomenon --but it's not gravity that's observed. We know gravity not by observing any gravity itself but by observing 'effects' of masses. Essentially, gravity is nothing more than an extrapolation of 'cause' based on observed 'effects' of masses --so in a sense it really is the case that it exists because Newton jotted down some numbers.

That said, I agree with your point that there needn't be someone setting "outcomes that are broken down into procedures" in motion in nature. But I wasn't arguing that.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I subscribe to a theory that the universe is objectively and permanently dead. It is at maximum entropy and there is no more arrow of time. What we observe is just an illusion and is just telling us how it existed at a relatively young phase in its stelliferous era as complexity emerged, but that has long since played out in the objective universe as it has gone way past the stelliferous era into its degenerative era then into its black hole dominated era and finally completely extinct as they evaporated into just pure radiation. So virtually all the universe exists in the subjective future. Anthropic bias only gives us the illusion the universe is much much younger than it actually is.

 

[PolyHedral]

No, that doesn't reflect any argument I've made. Poly's arguing that algorithm is appropriate to describe the universe. I'm arguing that algorithm is an intelligence breaking down the steps by which an outcome is derived; so it could be concluded (thought I hadn't explicitly argued this part yet because it's not important to me) that algorithm is inappropriate to describe a universe that doesn't include an intelligent designer. Algorithm is an elegant, intelligent design --regardless of how many cooks there are in the kitchen.

An algorithm can also be a completely arbitrary function. It doesn't have to produce anything useful as output. It can also be incredibly inelegent; for instance, a recipe for cake may say to cook a chicken casserole halfway through before throwing it away and resuming the cake.

The set of useful algorithms is infinitely smaller than the set of all algorithms, but the latter is what the CT Thesis is about.

The Law of Gravity is probably not the best example for what you're trying to say here, because it's very much dependent upon observed phenomenon --but it's not gravity that's observed. We know gravity not by observing any gravity itself but by observing 'effects' of masses. Essentially, gravity is nothing more than an extrapolation of 'cause' based on observed 'effects' of masses --so in a sense it really is the case that it exists because Newton jotted down some numbers.

Gravity can be imagined as a mathematical function/agorithm: It is a transformation of a mass distribution into another mass distribution. In a sense, it has always existed, as a mathematician could do the calculations with or without Newton having existed. However, what Newton did was to show, "This specific function describes our universe." However, since we are not limited to talking about the universe, we don't have to restrict ourselves to the function Newton has shown is the "correct" one. If we want, we can imagine a "universe" where gravity works entirely differently, and that "gravity" would also be a function, albeit one that has no connection to the real universe

 

[atanu]

This is mostly for atheists, but open to anyone who believes that once we are dead, we're dead. That's it. We will never be alive again for the rest of eternity. We simply cease to exist, completely and permanently.

Reincarnation

Shri Ramana

Question: So you do not uphold the theory of rebirth?

Maharshi: No. On the other hand I want to remove your confusion that you will be reborn. It is you who think that you will be reborn. See for whom the question arises. Unless the questioner is found, such questions can never finally be answered.

Swami Vivekananda

Birth and death are in nature, not in you. Yet the ignorant are deluded; just as we under delusion think that the sun is moving and not the earth, in exactly the same way we think that we are dying, and not nature. ----


Bhagavat Gita
It (the self) is not born, and It does not die; nor is it ever that this One having been nonexistent becomes existent again. This One is birthless, eternal, undecaying, ancient; It is not killed when the body is killed. -Gita Ch.2 Verse 20

Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. The nature of both of them, indeed, has been realised by the seers of Truth. -Gita Ch.2, Shloka 16

Of the unreal there is no being.

The real has no nonexistence.

 

[gnostic]

Do you even know what FAITH is, 839311?

Faith is accepting belief without evidences or believing in something without evidences. It (FAITH) requires no evidences.

We know from experience that people die, their body stop functioning, and over time the body (like tissues and organs) break down. That's the reality. So this is not FAITH-BASED as you call it.

Only a complete idiot would think this is FAITH-BASED.

What is FAITH-BASED is:

• believing in the afterlife, like heaven or hell or even in reincarnation;
• or believing in God or something supreme being;
• or believing in spirit or soul;
• or believing in eternal life.

These are all faith-based, because there are no evidences of afterlife, heaven, hell, god, angels, demons, spirit, etc. Faith-based in believing in fantasy and wishes, hence outside of reality.

There are only 2 certainties we know for sure: life and death. There is no certainty regarding to the afterlife.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

What do I think is faith is generally based on.

• Some religion conversion or belief will make a difference to you after you die
• Baptism with just 18 rote learnt words would leave a lasting impression on your "soul"
• A belief in any supernatural existence such as becoming an angel or a saint in Heaven or a demon or a damned soul in Hell.
• A belief if you crash a plane into buildings you will be rewarded in the afterlife by sitting on the right hand of Allah with 72 virgins.
• Some supernatural being will be like a peeping Tom prying into people’s sexual behaviour and preferences in the bedroom.
• The world was created 6000 years ago by a few magic words from a supernatural being (let there be ....and so it was) or abarcadabra for that matter.
• Some supernatural being will be keep a record of the number of times you worship him, especially on a certain time of the week such as Sundays.
• A belief a concept of sin will leave an indelible mark on your soul until they a "cleansed" by to so called sacrament of confession by a few magic words from a qualified clergymen.
• The belief that a person’s gender gives people any more privileges such as the ordination of priests etc.
• Karma or any belief that some unseen principle automatically will punish us or reward us deeds we have done.
• The belief that embryos and zygotes have souls or the soul enters the individual at conception.
• The belief in discarnate spirits such as ghosts which have some intelligence without the need for a material body to exist.
• A belief on homeopathy or any other form of medical quackery.
• A belief you could melt or bent cutlery with your mind.
• A belief extraterrestrials have nothing better to do than probe our orifices
• A belief walking around drought stricken land waving a piece of rusty fencing wire or a stick in front of you can divine water.
• A belief appealing to dead nuns etc with an act of prayer cure cure terminally ill people from cancer etc for proof of miracles to promote them to sainthood

 

[Otherright]

Do you even know what FAITH is, 839311?

Faith is accepting belief without evidences or believing in something without evidences. It (FAITH) requires no evidences.

We know from experience that people die, their body stop functioning, and over time the body (like tissues and organs) break down. That's the reality. So this is not FAITH-BASED as you call it.

Only a complete idiot would think this is FAITH-BASED.

What is FAITH-BASED is:

• believing in the afterlife, like heaven or hell or even in reincarnation;
• or believing in God or something supreme being;
• or believing in spirit or soul;
• or believing in eternal life.

These are all faith-based, because there are no evidences of afterlife, heaven, hell, god, angels, demons, spirit, etc. Faith-based in believing in fantasy and wishes, hence outside of reality.

There are only 2 certainties we know for sure: life and death. There is no certainty regarding to the afterlife.

You are the one who apparently doesn't know what faith is. Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept or entity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-dict-0

You saying there is no afterlife is you trusting that the observation you are making in seeing the body stop functioning and breaking down, is correct. You are observing that the brain stops functioning, and that consciousness is no longer emergent.

Anything anyone says beyond that point, for or against what may happen next is inferred. It requires you to trust that the next step is either afterlife, or total non-existence. Your trust in it being either of those is faith, because you have to draw a conclusion.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I do find heaven or hell to be far less plausible than reincarnation and David Hume felt the same way, because heaven and hell has far more supernatural connotations whereas reincarnation is just simply another life not to dissimilar to the life we live now with the same issues with mortality. Angels on the other hand as said to be immortal and told by their believers to never die and are presumed to be far more invincible than Superman which not even kryptonite can kill. Not only are they believed to be supernatural but also are said to live in a context with is also supernatural namely Heaven or Hell which not even some believers or ghosts or fairies can bring themselves to believe. As much as I don’t believe in ghosts, at least they are said to exist in a context which is in keeping with the natural world such as old castles or derelict old mansions etc, which makes any belief in the existence of angels in their supernatural realm of “heaven” far more ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[gnostic]

You saying there is no afterlife is you trusting that the observation you are making in seeing the body stop functioning and breaking down, is correct. You are observing that the brain stops functioning, and that consciousness is no longer emergent.

Actually, I didn't say "there is no afterlife". I am saying that there are no evidences for it. There is a fine distinction between "no afterlife" and "no evidence of the afterlife".

You are the one who apparently doesn't know what faith is. Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept or entity.

Faith rely on nothing more than someone's opinion on the matter. It often ignored evidences.

I do agree with MOST of your above statement or definition on faith, except for ONE THING.

Yes, it is about trust, belief and hope. And yes, faith is about trustworthiness and goodness of a person, concept or entity as you say.

However, it has very little to do with RELIABILITY.

This is the 2nd definition of reliability:

2. the extent to which an experiment, test, or measuring procedure yields the same results on repeated trials

That's (reliability) falls more in the realm of science than faith.

Trust or trustworthiness, belief, hope and goodness are all subjective in perception - a matter of opinion. None of these can be measured, tested or verified with evidences.

Personally, I preferred evidences before I can trust any belief.

 

[atanu]

Actually, I didn't say "there is no afterlife". I am saying that there are no evidences for it. There is a fine distinction between "no afterlife" and "no evidence of the afterlife".

Do we know clearly about the present life? Is it equal to ego or is it equal to a body?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I would define an "afterlife" as some continuing existence that is not life as we know it; not biological life but something rather more like an ethereal existence in some ghostly spirit form such as angels or ghosts. After all that prefix "after" is just that, after life and not life itself. So I have no reason to believe in an "after" life any more than a pre life or some other pre life existence as we were waiting out turn to be born.

 

[atanu]

Man/mind in mired in body consciousness and it does not even want to know that consciousness is infinite.

There is no after-life for body since it has no life of its own. Similarly, there is no after-life for ego-mind, since it has no life of its own.

The Self-Life are not born; and hence have no after-life either.

 

[gnostic]

Do we know clearly about the present life? Is it equal to ego or is it equal to a body?

I don't know much about the ego.

From what I understand, the consciousness is tied to the body. Without life in the body, there would be no life whatsoever - consciousness, perception and ego would cease to exist.

I have yet to see the consciousness or ego going beyond the life of body.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I have come the a conclusion the objective universe is dead as it objectively exists in a dark era which is greater than 10 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion (> 10^100) after the big bang. We just live in a subjective window of opportunity as it existed mere 13.7 billion year after the big bang in the stelliferous era from 10^6 to 10^14 years after the big bang. But that is just an illusion as the universe left a history of a block universe in its wake. The reason why we observe the universe as being 13.7 billion years and not 10 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion is because everything is long dead and no consciousness exists then, just the total death everything, even atoms.

 

[atanu]

I don't know much about the ego.

That is good.

From what I understand, the consciousness is tied to the body. Without life in the body, there would be no life whatsoever - consciousness, perception and ego would cease to exist.

Body consciousness rises with the body and expires with the body. But the ego -- a false notion of doership takes ownership of actions and intelligence-life-body, though it does not own anything.

It does not take much contemplation that the ego does not know its own origin and does not own the underlying intelligence and life yet says "I understand, know .....". Isn't it a circular logic that with that consciousness which one accepts as tied to body one claims "I know there was no life and there will not be any"? Is it not like putting the cart before the horse?

In other words, how can that consciousness which has arisen in contact with the body know the origin of the body?

 

[PolyHedral]

In other words, how can that consciousness which has arisen in contact with the body know the origin of the body?

What does "know" mean in this context? Because it clearly doesn't mean what I think it means.

 

[atanu]

What does "know" mean in this context? Because it clearly doesn't mean what I think it means.

Ha ha. I don't know what you mean either.

 

[Copernicus]

Ha ha. I don't know what you mean either.

Atanu, I do not understand what you mean when you use the word "know" in this context. I think I understand perfectly well what Polyhedral means by his use of that word.

You ask how "body consciousness" can "know" its "origin". The expressions in quotes make sense to me as independent concepts, but when you juxtapose them in the way that you continually do, they make no sense at all. Can you clarify?

 

[gnostic]

The only way I could think of, in which consciousness could possibly survive is through our children and descendants. Part of myself will live on.

But is it our consciousness or ego, or is just our body chemistry that will live on through our descendants?

 

[atanu]

Atanu, I do not understand what you mean when you use the word "know" in this context. I think I understand perfectly well what Polyhedral means by his use of that word.

You ask how "body consciousness" can "know" its "origin". The expressions in quotes make sense to me as independent concepts, but when you juxtapose them in the way that you continually do, they make no sense at all. Can you clarify?

I can, but only through the medium of analogy and that will likely not suit you. Alternately, you may wish to read the following post to get an idea of what we mean by juxtaposition of thoughts on pure source of awareness.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/108221-error-perception-action.html

...........

I give a gross and approximate analogy to make things simpler (hopefully). Consider a building with capacity to see and think. While it is looking only at other buildings coming up one after another, it will not realise that the earth is its support. However, when, it looks down or looks within, then only it may get an idea of the support. Meditation is like that -- de-focus attention from external sense objects and focus on the subject itself.